In the absence of any medical subjects of interest to write about, I’ll throw in my two cents worth about Sarah Palin: As someone who determined from the minute his name was mentioned that I would never vote for McCain – I’m impressed by his VP choice.
I don’t think it’s enough to make me vote for McCain (if you read this blog, you’ll know that I’m too far off the ultra-right wing/libertarian side to like his straight-down-the-middle politics), but Palin is certainly enough to make me think two and three times. She knows an easy solution to the rising gas prices (drill in ANWR; why do we have to give all our oil money to the Arabs?); she supports gun rights; she’s lived out the pro-life commitment to the value of all human lives (keeping a Down’s baby, as busy as she is, takes some commitment, no matter how much help she may have) (which balances out my biggest gripe with McCain, which is that he sprouted pro-life ideas overnight during this election season); she has some executive experience. We could stand to know more about her ideas on several other key issues (terrorism, immigration, taxes), but based on her record so far, I’m optimistic that once she has the chance to talk, small-government conservatives will at least be mollified by what she says.
McCain made a pretty smart choice: someone who has everything that he lacks to get the conservative Republican base excited about his candidacy – and a woman. I’m also not a feminist, but from plain schadenfreude, I’m tickled to see the Republicans as the ones running a serious female candidate on a national ticket. (I’m not sure Ferraro counted as serious. And Hillary didn’t make it onto a ticket.) It’s going to be fun watching the feminists go through their contortions for the next few months, trying to explain why they don’t want a woman as vice president (and a vice president who incidentally stands a good chance to inherit the presidency; a fact which could make me even happier about voting for them).
Caveat: There’s a catch, of course. In addition to distrusting McCain himself, who is still the lead name, I probably won’t vote Republican this year because it’s inappropriate/wrong for a married mother of five to hold a position of such authority, and one that will take her so much away from her family. It’s a little pointless to have five children, and then not raise them wholeheartedly. And as vice president, one step away from the presidency, her authority will far supercede her husband’s, which is not right. Fun as it maybe to have the Republicans running the female candidate, I still don’t want a woman in the White House.
September 5, 2008 at 3:19 am
“I still don’t want a woman in the White House.”
How do you reconcile your anti-feminist beliefs, including not wanting a woman in the White House, with your wanting to go into a traditionally male field?
Are you planning on quitting your job to stay home if you have children? Would you marry a man who had a lesser career?
September 5, 2008 at 3:20 am
Must add, this is my curiosity asking more than anything, as your career choice and beliefs just seem so out of whack with one another.
September 5, 2008 at 7:52 am
“It’s going to be fun watching the feminists go through their contortions for the next few months, trying to explain why they don’t want a woman as vice president.”
Yesterday at work I listened to a woman vehemently declare Governor Palin is NOT a feminist because she is not pro-choice. Apparently there is not room for diversity in feminism.
September 5, 2008 at 8:21 am
Hey Alice, I think we owe McCain one, if it wasn’t for guys like him we’d all have to wear Ho Chi Minn sandals and ride bicycles to our jobs in the Cosmetics Factories where we’d use the Collagen from late term abortions to make anti aging creams for the elite ruling classes. Anyway, you wouldn’t really be voting for McCain, but for Electoral College voters who can always change their mind.
September 5, 2008 at 10:45 am
I am absolutely shocked at the “caveat” section of this post, and I’m hoping I’ve missed some inherent sarcasm, or something there.
Are you not planning on being married and having children at some point in your life? Because unless you marry a fellow surgeon, it’s likely that you will be the “breadwinner” in the family and “your power will far outweigh that of your husband’s.” I’m certainly no feminist, and don’t want to be, but I am absolutely shocked that female surgeon is balking at the idea a woman entering a male-dominated field, and having the ability (and support of a kind, loving husband) to be BOTH a mother, and a vice president.
As far as politics go, I was a Ron Paul lover, but I’ll vote whichever way I can to take this election away from Obama. I just can’t believe that the fact that she would be more powerful than her husband plays into ANYONE’S decision regarding her candidacy. Their marriage only has to work for THEM, and since they’ve been married 20 years, with 5 beautiful children, I’d say it does. I’m willing to bet it’s not unlike my own own supportive husband willing to put his career on hold in a few years so that I can fufill my dream of medical school and surgical residency. In my opinion, because I know I couldn’t do it without him, that makes him MORE powerful than I am, regardless of his title.
September 5, 2008 at 10:54 am
Alice, I’ll confine myself to this: please, as a physician, at least get your terminology right! It’s a baby with Down Syndrome, not Down’s.
September 5, 2008 at 11:46 am
Vonnie – Strictly speaking, Palin probably doesn’t count as a feminist. That doesn’t make her any less of a woman, or decrease her right to speak for herself and for whichever women choose to support her. Gloria Steinem and her ilk mean nothing to me, and to a large percentage of American women.
Frank – Absolutely, I’m grateful for McCain’s service in Vietnam, and for what he and the other POWs endured. That doesn’t mean I have to support him for president; although in a time of war, he certainly has more credibility and wisdom than a youth from Chicago.
S – I admit that there is a lot of cognitive dissonance in my behavior here, and believe me, it bothers me too. But if I marry, I plan to let my husband have the final say over whether I continue working, and how much time I spend away from home.
Kelley – Two things: I see a difference between a woman being a surgeon, and a woman holding a position of political power. If I were married, me being a doctor would not oblige my husband to do anything I wanted, or to give any more weight to my opinions than he would otherwise. However, the presidency and vice-presidency are positions of authority over all Americans, which would include Palin’s husband.
Secondly: (I wish we could discuss this more in private; my email is at the top of the home page.) Careers like medicine and politics devour the people who enter them. I know, because my father was a doctor, and I can feel myself imitating his dedication, at the same time that I regret what that meant for our family. The ethical obligations that you learn in medical school and residency require to put your patients ahead of everything in your life. Family comes second, for the doctors I’ve seen, and especially the good doctors. No matter how much priority you try to give your family, you’ll always be struggling with your duty to your patients. That may be ok for a man, but for a woman, and a mother, it’s not the same. I do indeed plan on not working, or at least not working more than two or three days a week, if I have children. If I already had a family, I seriously, seriously doubt whether I would be pursuing this career.
September 5, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Palin’s daughter is a perfect example of how effective abstinence education is.
September 5, 2008 at 3:37 pm
P.S. You seem too bright to believe the Ladies Against Feminism propoganda.
September 5, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I really don’t think female politicians or newscasters exude the authority that male ones do. Being 64, and seeing how the governmnt has evolved over the years, I also believe the entry of women in politics is one of the reasons for our increasingly “nanny” state–women doing what they do best, “taking care of you.” Thanks, but no thanks!
September 5, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Hermione – 1) Abstinence only works if you do it. 2) Let’s have a more substantive discussion than “this is propaganda.” What specifically are you referring to?
September 5, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Maybe they should have actually provided real sex education…..you should know the statistics about how effective abstinence education is (think prohibition in the 1920′s).
BTW, what do you think of people who won’t kiss others until they are married? Surprise wedding night!
September 5, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Alice, it’s amazing to see what happens when your posts don’t fit the goose-stepping conformity of liberal America. One commenter thinks anything other than surgery is a “lesser” career (does S really think so little of teachers? janitors? police officers?), another apparently gets out so little that she’s actually “shocked” by your caveat (has Kelley seriously never met a conservative before?), and yet another thinks ONE unwed mother is “a perfect example of how effective abstinence education is” (beautiful inductive fallacy there).
Keep up the good work, Alice!
September 6, 2008 at 6:02 am
Hermione, Just maybe Bristol Palin wanted to have a kid. Women aren’t all Stupid Bee-Otches, and hey by the way, if anyone should be practicing Abstinence its the Homo-Sexuals, I mean whats a baby compared to a Gazillion HI-Vs riding around in your blood stream. Anyway, its none of your F-in Beeswax.
September 6, 2008 at 9:48 am
Wes – You put it so succinctly.
Frank – Minus some phraseology
, exactly. Why the assumption that the pregnancy is accidental (although it being purposeful wouldn’t make me any happier, in an unwed teenager, but it doesn’t necessarily relate to the effectiveness of abstinencen morality in preventing pregnancy).
Hermione – Most of the studies used against abstinence education were done with the very early programs. It’s gotten better since then. But honestly, abstinence only makes sense as part of an all-encompassing religious perspective. If young people don’t have a background that makes virginity valuable, trying to vaccinate them with it for a couple hours in school isn’t going to undo the effects of our society’s sex-mania.
And btw, I’ve never kissed a guy, and don’t intend to do it until I get married. Wedding nights are supposed to be surprises – good surprises. Modern sexual practice is like opening your Christmas presents on Dec. 1 – what’s the point of that? Even apart from Biblical morality, women value themselves too lightly when they give their bodies away in return for – nothing.
September 6, 2008 at 11:59 am
Quick question:
“But if I marry, I plan to let my husband have the final say over whether I continue working, and how much time I spend away from home.”
So, what gives him that right? I assume (perhaps wrongly) that this will involve the Bible, in which case chapter and verse would be nice if you can.
September 6, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Actually the question isn’t what gives him that right (since the answer would be you, obviously), what I really want to know is how you came to that decision. I hope I’m explaining myself properly.
September 6, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Wes, why don’t you go read “Southern Slavery, As It Was” by Doug Wilson. That seems right up your alley.
September 6, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Gosh, you’re so right, Hermione; anyone who thinks teachers, janitors, and policemen are as valuable as doctors, and anyone who thinks logical argument is a good thing must *surely* be a wanna-be white Southern slaveholder!
September 6, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Hermione, Not to re-fight the War of Northern Agression, but Involuntary Servitude was practiced in Every Nothern State and was later abandoned there for economic, not Libertarian reasons. Slaves were the “Other Persons” mentioned in the first article of the Constitution, and BTW it was the Northern States who only wanted them counted as 3/5 a person. And the Emancipation Proclamation specifically only applied to Slaves in areas still controlled by the Confederates, and was meaningless, except as a PR move.
September 6, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Mayhem – Good question. Thanks for rephrasing it, but really I don’t think I’m the one giving my [theoretical] husband rights; I’m following God’s direction in this. As you surmise, this does come from the Bible:
Ephesians 5:22 ff: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so let wives be subject to their own husbands in everything.
“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it. . . so ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. .”
From which you’ll see that although I think I will owe my husband a lot, I expect a lot from him too. After all, husbands are called upon to imitate Christ, of whom it is said, “Greater love hath no man than this, than to lay down his life for his friend.”
Other passages:
Colossians 3:18-19: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be bitter against them.”
Titus 2:4-5: “The older women . . . [should] teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands. . .”
September 6, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I see. As you probably can tell, I was somewhat horrified by your statement. I couldn’t imagine anyone making such a decision for me or me making the final decision for my wife. But I see where you’re coming from now that you put in context. I stand educated.
September 6, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Wes: I actually AM a conservative, albeit one that believes a woman can be a Christian, and MORE than her husband’s pawn, and that a Mother can have more than children, and still be a GREAT parent.
I am also a strong, Christian woman, but I, personally, believe that God made EACH of us in His image, and gave each of us specific gifts and talents, and the ability to discern for ourselves how to conduct our lives. I dont’ believe that power is reserved for men. Some women have been given great talents in being stay at home mothers and homemakers, others are given talents in a plethora of other fields, including medicine, it may make me a different KIND of mother, but I don’t think it makes me any LESS of a mother, or any less of a Christian. Maybe that puts me at odds with Christianity, it certainly makes me a bit of an anomaly in my own Church, I just happen to believe that the good Lord gave me the passion and intelligence to pursue medicine for a reason; to use it, not to hang up my dreams because I also happen to be a woman, and a mother.
Though, Alice, I suppose in all fairness, while I view the subject differently than you, without my husband’s support, I wouldn’t be pursuing this career either, not because I believe I ought to “obey” him, but because I know that it will take every ounce of support we BOTH have for all 3 of us to make it through. Perhaps we’re not so different after all.
As far as abstinence education is concerned, I’m an advocate for it, AS LONG AS it also includes information on contraception. I do believe that children will attempt to live up to, or down to, our expectations, but I also know that hormones can get the best of any of us, teenagers especially, and knowledge is power. I don’t believe that abstinence eduction and contraceptive information have to be mutually exclusive.
September 7, 2008 at 12:12 am
Kelley: I agree with you. I think that abstinence, while a wonderful goal to be sure, should be coupled with information on pregnancy, contraception, STDs, etc. There have been several recent studies that have shown the dangers in not educating teenagers about sex (note that many Christian conservatives miss: INFORMATION about sex and its risks/alternatives does not promote sexual activity, rather the opposite).
Wes: Sorry to judge you, but you seem like someone who would go to a Doug Wilson church. BTW, there are SEVERAL studies that document how ineffective abstinence-only education is in preventing pregnancy. Bristol is just one example of many (and again, I don’t know the specifics of her situation).
Frank: Grab the wheel! I think you’re swerving.
September 7, 2008 at 7:38 am
“One commenter thinks anything other than surgery is a “lesser” career (does S really think so little of teachers? janitors? police officers?),”
Actually, I meant monetarily, as there aren’t many jobs that have salaries like doctors do.
“I plan to let my husband have the final say over whether I continue working, and how much time I spend away from home.”
See that just makes me sad. You are spending so many years, so much of your life, so much money to become a surgeon, and if you marry you would be willing to let all that go. The world needs more female surgeons.
“And btw, I’ve never kissed a guy, and don’t intend to do it until I get married. Wedding nights are supposed to be surprises – good surprises. Modern sexual practice is like opening your Christmas presents on Dec. 1 – what’s the point of that? Even apart from Biblical morality, women value themselves too lightly when they give their bodies away in return for – nothing.”
I can understand not having sex prior to marriage, but, never even kissing someone prior to marrying them is beyond my comprehension.
As far as giving their bodies away, I’d say mutual pleasure means it isn’t for nothing. Sex is a beautiful part of being a human being, and as long as you are an adult I see no problem with having sex.
(Before anyone says anything, I have been married 10 years, and I am completely faithful to my husband so I am not having sex outside of marriage.)
September 7, 2008 at 7:46 am
“Hermione, Just maybe Bristol Palin wanted to have a kid. Women aren’t all Stupid Bee-Otches,… Anyway, its none of your F-in Beeswax.”
The hell it isn’t our business. Her mother is a firm believer in taking away women’s reproductive rights, and supports abstinence only education. And she wants to be VP. Her life, and her children’s lives, are part of her and we have the right to question her judgment.
I do feel bad for Bristol though. If her mother hadn’t accepted the offer her live, and pregnancy, wouldn’t be international news.
September 7, 2008 at 9:03 am
Surprised Y’all Pinko Feminazis aren’t jokin about Palins daughter bein named after a NASCAR Race Track. You know, “Bristol” in Bristol, Tennessee? Thats cool, I’m sure Hussein will be making his mandatory Democratic Nascar Campaign Appearance in a few weeks.
September 7, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I do have to give Alice serious props for her decision to refrain from kissing a man until she is married. Whatever your personal views on sex in relationships, it’s a pretty serious commitment to make, in the name of ones beliefs.
It was hard enough for my husband and I to do nothing EXCEPT kiss prior to marriage, I can’t imagine not even having that to hold to. Though, it might have made it a little easier to forego the rest of it! We’re something of an anomaly back home, as well, having not had sex prior to our marriage, or anything even RESEMBLING a sexual relationship.
I do think that as a general rule, we’ve spent way too much time telling ourselves that whatever feels good must be “natural,” and/or “healthy,” and the rising numbers of STD’s and teen pregnancies are certainly indicative of this situation. I respect each individual’s right to their own belief system regarding sexual relationships, but it’s more than a little offensive for more traditional (read: religious) views to be considered archaic, and irrelevant; I expect the same respect I afford those of other (or no) faiths regarding their beliefs.
September 7, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Frank – Um, War for Southern Independence, yes; but this string is already way too wild, I’ll have to take you up on that later.
Kelley – We’re not that far apart. I can tell that medicine is something you’re really dedicated to. If you can pull off this career, and raise a family, more power to you. You’re right, your husband’s support is going to be absolutely essential. And my respect to the two of you for your commitments.
S – See, here we go with the loaded language again; although both sides have been doing it in this thread. “take away women’s reproductive freedom” – If a woman says yes to the guy, that’s her choice right there. One human should not have the right to choose to kill another human being, in the name of freedom. The basic question is, is the fetus human or not? What defines humanity? Seems by your reasoning pure size, or perhaps age, if you think that an 8.5 month old fetus which hasn’t been born yet is ok to abort, whereas a seven month old preemie is human simply because it made it out of the womb in one piece.
For the rest, it is a lot of time, money and effort; but I would willingly let it go, because to me being a wife and mother (holding some of those precious babies) is more valuable, and of eternal significance.
Why do you have to kiss someone before getting married? I wouldn’t choose someone who seems physically repulsive, but I hope to build my marriage [still theoretical here] on shared beliefs, values, and goals, which will last when our bodies age or get sick. Sex is good, but it’s not everything. I suspect that’s the reason so many modern “relationships,” whether marriages or live-ins fail, because they were built on physical attraction alone. The movie stars who fill the tabloids are extreme examples of this, with their breakups every couple of months, but what does it say for our culture that we spend so much attention on them?
September 8, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Kelley, thanks for your response, and I’m sorry for misunderstanding your comment about the value of other professions. I do actually agree with most of what you said about your beliefs and admire most of what you said about your own practice.
S, what is this fixation with Doug Wilson?
September 8, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I’m sorry, S, my mistake. It was Hermione who keeps bringing up Wilson.
September 11, 2008 at 11:37 am
“Modern sexual practice is like opening your Christmas presents on Dec. 1 – what’s the point of that? Even apart from Biblical morality, women value themselves too lightly when they give their bodies away in return for – nothing.”
I don’t believe that if you are truly in love with a man and you choose to have sex with him that you are necessarily devaluing your body purely because you are not married. There is love, intimacy, passion, and a wonderful bond forged. These things are not “nothing”.
Just so you understand, before I really had a serious boyfriend, I did not want to engage in pre-marital sex. I think there is a lot of merit to waiting until you meet “The One”. But then I met someone (whom I did not marry), and I felt that it was almost necessary, for lack of a better word, to consummate the relationship. It definitely added something intangible to our relationship (aside from the pleasure, of course).
September 12, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Shirah – But that’s exactly the point: It’s not necessary to engage in sex in order to get to know someone. Our bodies are special; God made sex, and it’s good, but he made it for the setting of marriage. Any good thing in the wrong context or the wrong timing becomes bad. A cocktail dress to work. Scrubs to an evening party. Ice cream on steak. Rain in the middle of harvest (to take an example from Proverbs). Modern society tells us a lie, that you have to “test drive” the relationship before getting married. That’s simply not true; that leads to relationships founded in physical compatibility, which fall apart just as fast when one partner gets sick, or doesn’t have the energy, or starts to age. Better to build your relationship on the real, unchangeable spiritual characteristics, and let sex be the icing on the cake.
September 12, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I am not talking about relationships based on sex. I don’t think you need to “test drive” anything – when you are with someone you love enough it only matters that you are close to them. The relationship that I mentioned failed due to other differences, it had nothing to do with physical compatibility. Sex came after being together for some time, once we had an actual, loving foundation. It still can be the icing on the cake.
September 13, 2008 at 4:28 pm
To me marriage is just a piece of paper…..
September 14, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Ok, Shirah, Hermione, I guess this rational approach to morality is failing, as usual. (Although, if marriage is just a piece of paper, then divorce is a logical corollary.)
Bottom line, I believe God, who invented marriage by creating a man and a woman for each other, when he says, “Liars and adulterers will burn in the lake of fire.” I know that sounds harsh, but I don’t mean it that way. I’m concerned for you. God created us, he gave laws, and when we violate them we earn his judgment. There is a way out, but before you can ask for forgiveness you have to acknowledge that you’ve done wrong.
September 15, 2008 at 4:08 pm
What an interesting thread and what an interesting series of comments. I have a couple of thoughts.
-While the relationship described in St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (with responsibilities on both sides) is a wonderful ideal, the first half of it has been used as an excuse to abuse women and deprive them of power. It’s one thing for two people to give up part of their power to each other for the good of the relationship, and quite another when it is one-sided. The problem I have with the language that Dr. Alice chose to use in her Caveat is just that, the language of power; and it sets her up to accept a situation where she gives up her personal power, but gains nothing in return. While the Bible predominatly reflects the patriarchal attitudes of the times in which is was written (and as such is very much a man’s book), there are glimpses of strong, capable women in its pages, some of whom went outside of convention and held positions of influence and power. And while there are many images of devoted family women, there are also images of powerful, “emancipated” women. Part of the image of the quiet, abused good Christian wife is that these strong women are rarely spoken of.
-The history of marriage and sex in the christian tradition are fascinating. When you read the Jewish and Christian holy texts, it is very clear that sex=marriage. This was simply a reflection of societal norms, which put enormous pressure on individuals who were sexually active to form a partnership (i.e. marriage). In fact, Marriage was very much a social institution until the Middle Ages, when for a variety of mostly political and economic reasons, the church took it over and made it one of the sacraments. What we are dealing with here is a new social milieu, where there is no longer social pressure for individuals to marry. I suspect that in our largely non-religious society, we will slowly move back toward a social environment where couples are expected to stay together regardless of whether they have any legal or religious sanction to their relationship. We have found out that unstable families do not raise stable children, and for the survival of our society, we will need to strengthen the family unit; in whatever form it ultimately takes.
September 15, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Beach Bum – It is a bit of a far cry from the original topic.
- Your first argument consists mostly of using loaded language, and not much logic. How can you call the Bible a book which oppresses women (the patriarchal part I won’t contradict, but suggest that we need to define the term), and at the same time praise it for showing strong and powerful women?
Next, just because an ideal is susceptible to abuse doesn’t mean I should relinquish that ideal, but that I should be careful in how I seek its fulfillment. The Bible has been distorted to support anti-Semitism as well, for instance; I don’t think the Bible really teaches that, and I’m not going to devalue it because some people have used it that way. Similarly for the “oppression of women” line; although I’d argue that women who were provided with stable homes and a father for their children are less oppressed than modern women, whose relationships may dissolve at any moment, and who are expected to both earn an income, keep house, and care for the children.
- I think you’ve got your post and your propter hoc mixed up. How about turning the argument around: Previous societies regarded marriage as a sine qua non for sex, because that’s what their religious text required. Economics and sociology apart, the Bible says God created one man and one woman to be joined together, support each other, and raise children. God calls it a sin to engage in sex outside of that relationship.
So the real question is, what is the Bible? Is it a collection of traditional sayings, or is it the Word of God Himself? It is in fact living and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword; man cannot live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. Are we going to tell God what he can and can’t say, or are we going to submit to his guidance?
September 16, 2008 at 4:21 pm
It is.
It’s an interesting discussion (and for that I thank you). It seems I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t trying to say that the Bible opresses women, just that certain passages in the Bible, taken out of context, have been used to justify the oppression of women.
I agree with you that social stability, and the stability of sexual partnerships are best for raising children and for each partner (and said as much in my previous comment). If you look at it from a purely anthropologic and evolutionary viewpoint, the best thing for the next generation and the passing on of vigorous DNA is a stable family unit. And I think in your attempt to be careful in how your relationship played out, you would agree that a societally stable relationship that made you powerless wouldn’t be a good thing. I think that there are two issues at play here: one the inherent stability and societal support for monogamous sexual relationships (or at the very least, staying together for the children) and two, the oppression of women. To find a balance, where women are empowered and not vulnerable to abuse, but where there is strong social pressure for sexually active couples to stay together is my ideal. But I think you would also agree that in many societies, social stability comes hand in hand with the disenfranchisment of women and for me, that’s a problem.
I must say that personally, I find it intriging that you would invest so much time, energy, blood, sweat, and tears in becoming the best person and doctor you can and be prepared to abandon it tomorrow if someone with a penis (who may or may not have your best interests at heart) told you to. I must admit, my first reaction (as someone who struggled to get into medical school) was, “she should have let someone else have her place, if it means so little to her.” And I say this as someone who is passionately committed to the idea that children need loving parents at home who are actively and lovingly parenting them; I get the “staying home for the kids arguement.” I guess what I am trying to understand is how you could invest so much, but be willing to give it up because someone else told you to.
And for me, it boils down to interpretation. There is no one, true way to interpret the Bible. Each culture, society, and historical church has interpreted it according to its times. You yourself wrote, “I don’t think the Bible really teaches that.” Who authorized you to make that decision? The people who taught anti-Semitism from the pulpit clearly thought otherwise. In interpreting the Bible, we are guided by what Christians of the past have thought, but are forced to discard those aspects of their interpretation that we find to be wrong. Is this unchristian? Of course not, it’s how religion works. Does that mean we get things wrong? Of course. But we do our best to muddle through to an interpretation that ultimately serves us.
In pointing out examples of strong, emancipated women in the Bible, I was attempting to suggest that the Bible’s teaching on the role of women isn’t as clear cut as some Christians profess when they use just a few passages (often taken out of context) to support their thesis. That with any theology, the overall balance of thought is as important as individual passages.
What is the Bible? It IS a collection of traditional stories, myths, and sayings. Is it more than that? Of course.
But what about cultures that don’t have sacred texts? What about cultures (who you would consider degenerate and lost in sin) who also share the social pressure for sexual exclusivity? What about prehistoric cultures? What about other primate species which have some similar societal pressures (although some primate societies are very promiscuous)?
I happen to think that religious texts reflect the needs and preoccupations of the society in which they arise. To use the language of inerrancy, God caused the Bible to contain what it does because that is what the ancient Hebrews and Early Christians needed to hear. To me, that means that as far removed as we are from those believers, it behooves us to interpret these ancient texts in the social, economic, and cultural context from which they arose.
Thanks again for an interesting discussion. I always love the chance to think about what I believe and why I believe it.
September 17, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Beach Bum, I hope you don’t mind me joing this particular fray. If you do, I’ll bow out, I promise.
Why do you assume that the husband/wife relationship Alice is talking about involves “powerlessness” for her? Biblically, submission to others is the way to happiness. Wives submit to husbands, husbands submit to wives, friends submit to each other, each considers the other first. For Christians, Jesus’s submission and “powerlessness” in the face of the authority of others, even evil authority which killed Him, is the model for our behavior. Genuine Christianity has always understood that true joy doesn’t come from asserting your rights, independence, and self. Of course others take advantage. Of COURSE they do. But so what? True happiness doesn’t come from refusing to be taken advantage of. Even non-Christians sometimes get this right — read Plato’s Gorgias.
And why do you assume that Alice is subject to the question “who authorized you to make decisions about the Bible” but that you are not? I mean, who authorized you to say that there is no one, true way to interpret the Bible? How do you know that? Given your reading of things, why should anyone accept your opinion as more true than Alice’s?
The fact that passages in the Bible have been misused, the fact that everybody and their dog has a different interpretation, the fact that Bible was written in ancient cultures — how do any of these facts imply that there is no one, true way to interpret the Bible? The historical Christian perspective is that there *is* a true way to interpret the Bible and the fact that it’s hard to discover doesn’t excuse us from making the effort, and the fact that we don’t like the things it tells us doesn’t excuse us from believing them. If a patient doesn’t like his doctor’s diagnosis of cancer, can he just interpret the doctor’s words any way he wants so that he feels better (temporarily)? What if it turns out that accepting the doctor’s diagnosis results in short-term pain but long-term happiness? And what if accepting what God says about male/female relationships does the same thing?